Invocation of Right to Counsel in State Proceeding Inapplicable in Federal Proceeding
In United States v. Davis, No. 07-12015, 2008 WL 800125, *1 (11th Cir., Mar. 27, 2008), Benjamin Davis was stopped at a roadblock by Atlanta police officers, who found a handgun on the floor of Davis’ vehicle. Davis was charged under Georgia law with unlawful possession of a firearm and invoked his right to counsel at his arraignment. Id.
A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) agent then sought to interview Davis, and Davis agreed to the interview. Id. During the interview, Davis told the agent that the firearm was his and that he was a convicted felon. Id. The agent gave Davis no warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and did not advise him of his right to counsel. Id.
Unsurprisingly, Davis was later indicted by a federal grand jury for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and moved to suppress the statements he made to the agent. Id. The trial court denied the motion, and Davis entered a guilty plea and subsequently appealed, arguing that his interrogation by the agent violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, since he was charged with the same offense in state and federal court and had invoked his right to counsel in the state proceeding. Id. at *1-2. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Davis’ motion to suppress, holding that, under the “dual sovereignty doctrine,” “a defendant's invocation of his right to counsel in the state criminal proceedings does ‘not attach to the uncharged federal ... offenses at the time of the interview.’” Id. at *2 (quoting United States v. Burgest, --- F.3d ----, No. 06-11351, Slip Op. at 7 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2008)).